forum.EE2.eu

I have a query to the Department of Justice for an opinion in the following inconsistency:

Can a player who violated the Team Protection Act also be punished for breaking normal game rules in the same game?

For example:
- There is a game with the standard "yes_rules".
- One player nukes or does harmful spy maneuvers on an ally.
- The case is reported to the Ministry of Game Affairs.

If the reported player is found guilty, is he responsible for:
- Breaking game rules and violation of the Team Protection Act
or just:
- Violation of the Team Protection Act?

I think that not attacking your own ally is like a very implicit rule. If you do that you are still breaking the rules.
In other words Violation of the Team Protection Act should be considered as one of the ways for Breaking Game Rules.

So, we could say a certain player broke game rules, more specifically that player violated the Team Protection Act.

I understand, however the "game rules" are not defined anywhere (no separate Act, it's just a knowledge forwarded from grandma to parents and then sons and daughters).

So I assume if the TPA was violated, then we don't need to also mention the game rules breaking in the ban (or the other punishment type) reason? Since TPA lists all these possibilities I guess it's less "paper work" to just use it as the reason.